AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Under challenge is the order dated 18.4.2017, whereby the Dy. Secretary cum Dy. Commissioner, Enquiries in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj on the instructions of the jurisdictional Minister required the Divisional Commissioner to send the files pertaining to enquiries into complaints against the respondents no. 6 & 7 in view of the objections at the delinquent's instance pertaining to the constitution of 4 member Committee for the enquiries and directing that till further orders the four member Committee constituted under the Commissioner's order dated 31.1.2017 to enquire into the complaints would remain in abeyance.
Mr. Lokesh Sharma, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 18.4.2017 is malafide with the sole intent to obstruct expeditious enquiries against the respondent no. 6 Murari Lal Sharma and his wife respondent no. 7
Smt. Lalita Devi pertaining to various misconduct attributed to them while holding the post of Sarpanch at various times. He prayed that for the aforesaid reason, the impugned order dated 18.4.2017 be quashed and set-aside and a direction be issued that the 4 member committee constituted by the Divisional Commissioner under his order dated 31.1.2017 to complete all pending enquiries against the respondents no. 6 & 7 expeditiously and in any event within 3 months inasmuch as the post of Sarpanch is for a fixed tenure of only 5 years and respondent no.
6 presently Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Doodh Walon Ka Baas, Tehsil Khandela has enjoyed over two and half years of the term.
Mr. Sharma further submitted that aside of stalling the several enquiries against the respondent no. 6 Murari Lal Sharma and his wife respondent no. 7 Smt. Lalita Devi, the Divisional Commissioner in another independent enquiry already completed, has found, under his order dated 17.4.2017 respondent no. 6 Murari Lal Sharma to be guilty of misconduct and held him liable to be disqualified to contest elections for a period of 5 years under Section 38(3) of the Rajathan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ''the Act of 1994''). Yet action on the finding dated 17.4.2017 is not being taken and respondent no. 6 allowed to continue as Sarpanch for reasons of political interference masquerading as revising power under Section 97 of the Act of 1994.
Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned AAG for the State appearing with Mr. Krishan Veer Singh submitted that the order dated 18.4.2017 is one in the exercise of administrative powers of the Minister in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj. The allegation of malafide is bald and vacuous. He submitted that pursuant to the order dated 18.4.2017, all pending enquiries against respondents no. 6 & 7 have been entrusted to one Alok Katariya, Executive Engineer (Project) (Headquarters) Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan on 5.7.2017 who has been required to complete them by
15.11.2017. Mr. Anurag Sharma further submitted that in view of the serious disputes between the complainant and the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Doodhwalon Ka Baas, Tehsil Khandela, the enquiry proceedings become very contentious leading to delays.
The complainant/s and the respondents be directed to cooperate.
It was further submitted that as far as action on the report of the Divisional Commissioner under his order dated 17.4.2017 is concerned, the Government is seized of the matter and necessary orders thereon shall be passed with reasonable expedition.
Heard. Considered.
The appointment of an enquiry officer under Section 38 of the Act of 1994 is in the nature of exercise of administrative power by the State Government. It is no doubt true that the Divisional Commissioner as deligatee of the State Government in the first instance had earlier appointed a 4 member committee vide his order dated 31.1.2017 for enquiry into various complaints of misconduct against respondent no. 6 Murari Lal Sharma and his wife respondent no. 7 Smt. Lalita Devi. However, on objections having been raised by the delinquents with regard to the alleged partisanship of the aforesaid committee, the Minister of the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department directed as evident from the impugned order dated 18.4.2017 that the enquiries by the four member committee constituted by the Divisional Commissioner be kept in abeyance and the record be called for.
Now it transpires that subsequently, another enquiry officer has been appointed under order dated 5.7.2017 with a directive to complete all enquiries against the respondent no. 6 Murari Lal Sharma and his wife Smt. Lalita Devi, respondent no. 7, on or before 15.11.2017. I am of the considered view that in the facts as obtaining, there is no need to address the challenge to the order dated 18.4.2017 as in pursuance thereof, another enquiry officer has already been appointed. Nothing illegal is attributable to the appointment of the new enquiry officer in view of objections having been raised against the committee earlier constituted for the purpose. It is however directed that taking into consideration that the term of Sarpanch is only for a period of 5 years, the enquiries into the several complaints against respondent no. 6 Murari Lal Sharma and his wife Smt. Lalita Devi, respondent no. 7, be expedited and in all eventuality it be completed by 15.11.2017 as already mandataed by the Government. Non cooperation either of the complainant or the delinquent shall entitle the enquiry officer to proceed ex-parte and to come to a finding on the basis of the record obtained from the Gram Panchayat Doodh Walon Ka Baas, Tehsil Khandela and elsewhere in his discretion.
As far as action on the Divisional Commissioner letter dated 17.4.2017 against respondent no. 6 Murari Lal Sharma is concerned, it is directed that the Secretary and Commissioner, Rural Development Panchayati Raj Department shall take a final decision thereon within a period of 25 days from today in view of the fact that over 4 months have already lapsed since the letter of the Divisional Commissioner recording his findings and making recommendation thereon. This is so as the delinquent against whom finding of misconduct has been arrived at by the Divisional Commissioner on an enquiry duly held under Section 38 of the Act of 1994 cannot be allowed to continue and enjoy government's delays detrimental to public interest. This Court would reiterate the oft repeated dictum that exercise of statutory discretion is not a license to arbitrariness or inexplicable delays with reference to the issue under consideration. The State Government is under an obligation to exercise its discretion and act on the report submitted by the Divisional Commissioner on 17.4.2017, in accordance with law.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.